Posted on 11/14/2006 8:28:17 PM PST by Vinny
George W. Bush, who led the Republicans and conservatives to three straight electoral victories, who won the White House against an incumbent Democratic administration, who rallied this nation after 9/11, and removed two oppressive regimes in Aghanistan and Iraq, is suddenly responsible for all that ails the nation.
This is no surprise to those of you who have been listening to the Democrats for six years, but now we have the Republicans and conservatives joining the chorus, the same folks who once celebrated the President as the next Churchill.
I have something to say to Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan and the rest of the back bench second guessers who are maligning a good man whose winning percentage — close to 80 percent — is solid and who has more character than the rest of them combined.
Lay off. I am not sure what is more sickening, listening to Bill Maher or watching Scarborough and his media analysts cavorting as they try Freudian analysis on Bush and his father; or suggest with a straight face that the elder Bush and his team are foreign policy geniuses that George W. Bush should have consulted. You know, the guys who allowed tens of thousands of Shiites in the south to be massacred by Saddam because they refused to enforce the no-fly zone agreed to by the Butcher of Baghdad. Right, those geniuses.
George W. Bush, who led the Republicans and conservatives to three straight electoral victories, who won the White House against an incumbent Democratic administration, who rallied this nation after 9/11, and removed two oppressive regimes in Aghanistan and Iraq, is suddenly responsible for all that ails the nation.
This is no surprise to those of you who have been listening to the Democrats for six years, but now we have the Republicans and conservatives joining the chorus, the same folks who once celebrated the President as the next Churchill.
I have something to say to Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan and the rest of the back bench second guessers who are maligning a good man whose winning percentage — close to 80 percent — is solid and who has more character than the rest of them combined.
Lay off. I am not sure what is more sickening, listening to Bill Maher or watching Scarborough and his media analysts cavorting as they try Freudian analysis on Bush and his father; or suggest with a straight face that the elder Bush and his team are foreign policy geniuses that George W. Bush should have consulted. You know, the guys who allowed tens of thousands of Shiites in the south to be massacred by Saddam because they refused to enforce the no-fly zone agreed to by the Butcher of Baghdad. Right, those geniuses.
As for Buchanan and Limbaugh, they so worked up the nation about immigration that they almost hand-delivered the Hispanic vote to the Democrats. What made this issue a national emergency all of sudden? Actually, nothing. President Bush's policy on immigration was similar to that of previous presidents, but his proposed solution is more creative than erecting a 700-mile wall.
You might also consider that in the mid 1990s Gingrich allowed Clinton to walk all over him at a time when Newt was touted as the hottest political genius since, well, Brent Scowcroft I guess.
It probably wouldn't hurt for all those hurting or gloating because of last week's election to simply be quiet. I appreciate the difficulty of this request, since many of them are paid to blather endlessly, but truthfully they have nothing relevant to say and they are losing their wits.
Bush has been one of a few conservatives in the country, along with a few folks at National Review and in Congress, to show a little class and grace in the midst of defeat. He did what any president should do when the opposing party wins — he extended his hand in partnership, but without offering up his principles. His Democratic enemies will show their true colors in due course and once the Republicans stop the bloodletting, they might get around to helping the President manage a tough war and the critical issues we confront as a nation.
But kicking a man when he's down has never been a sign of character. Republicans and Democrats might observe the example of Ronald Reagan. After beating Jimmy Carter in 1980, Reagan wanted desperately to reach out to the defeated President in a graceful way. Even as he prepared to take the oath of office, Reagan looked to Carter for news about the hostages in Iran in the hope that he could publicly credit Carter for securing their release. That's class.
President Bush is a good (but stubborn) man who has faced unprecedented calamities that would have tested even our greatest presidents. In fact, every president faces political setbacks and stands accused of major mistakes, particularly during time of war.
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Reagan — all hailed as great presidents in many quarters, but all of whom had as many detractors as supporters. Even Churchill stood accused of major military blunders during World War I, and after saving his nation and leading it to victory in World War II, was immediately tossed out of power.
It is one thing to suggest that the war in Iraq could be better managed or that the President strayed too far from conservative principles, quite another to suggest that he has failed on every front simply because a confluence of factors led to shift in the Congress.
Here's hoping the President gets it right in Iraq, and leaves the White House in good standing, because he's still the toughest we've got. After all, any man who can drive the terrorists to applaud a Democratic victory surely is doing something right.
You might also consider that in the mid 1990s Gingrich allowed Clinton to walk all over him at a time when Newt was touted as the hottest political genius since, well, Brent Scowcroft I guess.
It probably wouldn't hurt for all those hurting or gloating because of last week's election to simply be quiet. I appreciate the difficulty of this request, since many of them are paid to blather endlessly, but truthfully they have nothing relevant to say and they are losing their wits.
Bush has been one of a few conservatives in the country, along with a few folks at National Review and in Congress, to show a little class and grace in the midst of defeat. He did what any president should do when the opposing party wins — he extended his hand in partnership, but without offering up his principles. His Democratic enemies will show their true colors in due course and once the Republicans stop the bloodletting, they might get around to helping the President manage a tough war and the critical issues we confront as a nation.
But kicking a man when he's down has never been a sign of character. Republicans and Democrats might observe the example of Ronald Reagan. After beating Jimmy Carter in 1980, Reagan wanted desperately to reach out to the defeated President in a graceful way. Even as he prepared to take the oath of office, Reagan looked to Carter for news about the hostages in Iran in the hope that he could publicly credit Carter for securing their release. That's class.
President Bush is a good (but stubborn) man who has faced unprecedented calamities that would have tested even our greatest presidents. In fact, every president faces political setbacks and stands accused of major mistakes, particularly during time of war.
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Reagan — all hailed as great presidents in many quarters, but all of whom had as many detractors as supporters. Even Churchill stood accused of major military blunders during World War I, and after saving his nation and leading it to victory in World War II, was immediately tossed out of power.
It is one thing to suggest that the war in Iraq could be better managed or that the President strayed too far from conservative principles, quite another to suggest that he has failed on every front simply because a confluence of factors led to shift in the Congress.
Here's hoping the President gets it right in Iraq, and leaves the White House in good standing, because he's still the toughest we've got. After all, any man who can drive the terrorists to applaud a Democratic victory surely is doing something right.
Yea...do nothing, amnesty, surrender the southern border.
The first several paragraphs were repeated. I thought I was going nuts at first. Now I'm convinced.
Rush spoke out against the amnesty legislation that was in the senate, but he never went after the president on it. Not sure where the author is coming from, lumping Limbaugh in with Buchanan.
Actually not a bad post. Bush has been steadfast in his fight against our enemies. Too bad he cannot say the same about his own party.
Your right. uuuh sorry.
PING
It might be noted that for years Rush has daily defended the President. Rush said he was 'tired of carrying the water' for Republicans who didn't show enough spine to win the election. And Rush has been 100% right on the immigration issue. This is not the time to attack the Right's leading voice. That audience of 20 million listeners didn't let anyone down. Most voted. And they mostly voted for conservative candidates. We lost the election this time with the help of the MSM. They won this one. But, another day is coming...
Had they gotten around to that in the past 6 years, they may very well have still been in the majority.
writer seems to blow with the wind.....
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/author/George%20Shadroui
However, Rush has never been president so he isn't qualified to talk about it.
Only George Bush can solve George Bush's problems.
Good article.
pingeroo
I see everything twice!
Actually, probably a good thing, it makes a valid point.
At least he's not blaming SAVAGE. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.